In the chapter “Genealogy of Site Specificity”, Miwon Kwon discusses about the evolution or development of site-specific art. The rise of site specific art came with the rise of the minimalist. The movement with minimalist were centered around how art works focused on the relationship between the art work and the site, and “demanded the physical presence of the viewer for the work’s completion.” The site or location of such art works were greatly stressed by several artists as Kwon mentioned in her chapter. She quotes “A site specific work and as such not to be relocated, to remove the works is to destroy the work.” The reasons Kwon suggest for the rise of site-specific work were the result of the minimalist trying to “challenge” the museum space. Kwon makes a great point about how the museum space is now seen by the artists as an artificial and controlled, and the point of the site-specific art is to break out of this normative and conventional space.
Kwon further explains in the chapter how site-specific art were being involved in more political and social complications, moving toward deaestheticization. She writes that “the work no longer seeks to be a noun/object but a verb process, provoking the viewers.” An example she uses was Mierle Ukeles exaggerated cleaning of the museum to show the hidden and devalued labor of daily maintenance the museum requires. I personally thought this was a great example; it is true that barely anyone ever thinks about things such as the labor required before hand of things we have, we simply take things for granted. Ukeles’ exaggeration is provoking because it makes people feel uncomfortable about themselves for not realizing or for being ignorant about the situation put forth.
Another up rising of site specific art was to escape the commomdification of art. However, Kwon seems to suggest how this was not an accomplished goal. The site specific art became more common and was taken up by the mainstream art world. There was an increasing trend of relocating and reproducing the ‘once unique’ site bond works. I like how Kwon mentions in the chapter about reasons some artists has for considering the relocation/reproduction of their site specific art. For example, she mentioned about the social pressures Faith Wilding had when considering whether or not to replication her piece, the Womb Room.
Question: A lot of stresses were placed on the specificity of site-specific art, so how come people started to relocated and reproducing site specific arts? I think it is really interesting how Kwon mentioned site specificity, with cities, and advertising. But I wonder if she is referring to advertising about the city or to the city? Because advertising to the city would definitely show how site specific work has a big influence, especially advertising to different social classes.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Site Specificity
Miwon Kwon's Genealogy of Site Specificity was pretty clear and concise although the ideas surrounding site specificity are numerous and complex. This article was really interesting because I've never thought about the art in relationship to it's space and the viewer. At first, place is introduced as a concrete space like the environment but then towards the end of the article site becomes more of a subject such as the use of homosexuality or racism to be the basis of an artwork. I find it interesting and very creative how artists express their retaliation against the instituionalized frame of museums subjecting the art to become an "illusion". The art's beauty then becomes stressed by the blank walls and preassumptions viewers have when they enter these institutions. Some examples of this retaliation included Daniel Buten's Within and Beyond the Frame where his artwork actually went out the window to exemplify the constraints of museums and Michael Asher's exhibition of culturally specific situations to impose certain thoughts on viewers that reflected the ways of institutionalized framing. Kwon later explained how site specificity has also changed because of technology and the internet. He called this the functional site and that art has become nomadic and is more "structured textually rather than spatially". To conclude his article he was able to come up with three paradigms for site specificity: phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive.
In Kwon's second article Unhinging of Site Specificity, he talks about the the importance of originality of the work and commodification. He explains that any art that is reproduced without the artist's "touch" is inauthentic. The site is very important in completing the art piece. Even now the artist may be asked to create a personal art piece for a specific site like a museum. Rather than the artist creating an artwork that that the environments adapts too, it is the environment that creates the art. This sort of art making is something I didn't know people did this and how much work and time was put into something like this. Kwon also mentions that commodification also takes away the "traditional standards of aesthetic distinction based" on the skills of the artist. This reminded me of postmodern art and Andy Warhol's silk screen artworks because that was a problem between modernists and postmodernists.
Questions:
What does unfixed impermanence mean when he says we should focus on that rather that the physical permanence of an artpiece?
In Kwon's second article Unhinging of Site Specificity, he talks about the the importance of originality of the work and commodification. He explains that any art that is reproduced without the artist's "touch" is inauthentic. The site is very important in completing the art piece. Even now the artist may be asked to create a personal art piece for a specific site like a museum. Rather than the artist creating an artwork that that the environments adapts too, it is the environment that creates the art. This sort of art making is something I didn't know people did this and how much work and time was put into something like this. Kwon also mentions that commodification also takes away the "traditional standards of aesthetic distinction based" on the skills of the artist. This reminded me of postmodern art and Andy Warhol's silk screen artworks because that was a problem between modernists and postmodernists.
Questions:
What does unfixed impermanence mean when he says we should focus on that rather that the physical permanence of an artpiece?
Site Specificity
For this section, we have to read two articles from Miwon Kwon about site specific art. The first one is “Genealogy of Site Specificity,” where Miwon mainly discusses what is site specific art. In it, Miwon argues that anything can be categorized into this particular genre ranging from a studio, gallery, landscape, to even runaway show. The second article “Unhinging of Site Specificity,” Kwon goes on and focuses on the authenticity of site specific art; it cannot be site specific anymore if the art piece was moved. “To remove the work is to destroy the work. (12)” It loses its originality and meaning when replicate since it would not be in the same environment and it would be set up by someone else rather than the artist him/herself. However, Kwon mentions several ways to solve such problem, such as having the certification for the replication from the artist, or if the artist was present during the reproduction, then it is still considered to be authentic. Reproducing these art works also takes away their aesthetic values. When an art is reproduced, it becomes more common, which Miwon call commodity. Reproducing art seems inauthentic to me because all the original conditions were gone. I believe in craftsman's work a lot. However, Kwon doesn't think consider that the meanings behind the art works are lost through the process of transported. There are two things I'm a little bit confused about, is minimalism the same with site specificity? Also, since reproducing an art work looses its aesthetic value because its not original, how about Andy Warhol's work?
Site-specificity
Site-specific art, at least the way Miwon Kwon presents it, is much more tangible, and in some ways, more logical than Situationism. It's also more forceful because it is broad and encompasses many types of art, yet it forces meaning and purpose to all these various forms of art and expression. Artwork is no longer passive beauty to be admired -it carries a message, and in order to fully comprehend and embrace this message, the viewer needs to understand the context (both physical and theoretical) that it is presented in. It is completely centered and focused on relationships - with the environment, the viewer, the current social and political backdrop, etc. Similar to Situationism though, it is ironic and interesting how although Site-specific art is a critique on the institutional of the museum and its subsequently implied social and economic implications, it can't fully break away from the culture of the museum and art life as a secular religion. It indirectly relies on the institution of the museum -and the socioeconomic standing of those that visit it to construct and promote its idea, just like Andy Warhol's artwork did. It seems as if a lot of contemporary and critical art loops back like this -so is it just the idea that counts?
Kwon also discusses the authenticity and validity in reproduction of site-specific art and its creator. I don't think all work lose its meaning and originality when relocated, maybe only the art that was intended to be site-specific (is all art site specific in some ways?) Although perhaps not to its original degree, art can definitely still be appreciated outside of its original context - with explanations, study, and understanding. How else will artwork and unique ideas spread and educate people to incite the change or pondering it intends to? A lot of art is impossible to appreciate and value in it's original context, which is why we rely on the photographs, along with related writings, discussions, and disclaimers. How important really, are each of the relationships the piece of work has with its original environment, artist, intended audience etc?
Kwon also discusses the authenticity and validity in reproduction of site-specific art and its creator. I don't think all work lose its meaning and originality when relocated, maybe only the art that was intended to be site-specific (is all art site specific in some ways?) Although perhaps not to its original degree, art can definitely still be appreciated outside of its original context - with explanations, study, and understanding. How else will artwork and unique ideas spread and educate people to incite the change or pondering it intends to? A lot of art is impossible to appreciate and value in it's original context, which is why we rely on the photographs, along with related writings, discussions, and disclaimers. How important really, are each of the relationships the piece of work has with its original environment, artist, intended audience etc?
Site Specificity – A Permeable Art
Miwon Kwon in “Genealogy of Site Specificity” and “Unhinging of Site Specificity” provides a thorough understanding of how art is adaptive to both time and place and the context in which a specific art is erected. I especially enjoyed how site specific art was grounded to the site, location, city, space being occupied and how ultimately there is no escape from whatever meaning is provided by the setting. Of further interest is Kwon’s description in how site specific art should not only be aesthetically enjoyed, but it should also be a sensory experience of the “here and now” (267).
I have to agree with most of the post and say I enjoyed the idea behind this type of art for more than one reason. First, I like how site specific art is not meant to be relocated and the theory that to “remove the work is to destroy the work” (268) because it further privileges this idea of site being equally as important as what is being portrayed. Second, I also enjoyed the role that artist now play in site specific art – a role that goes beyond the originator of an artwork to now include an actor, element, participant role in the artwork itself like demonstrated by Ukeles when washing the entry plaza and steps of a museum. Third, I liked the arguments made by site specific art – arguments that ranged from gender bias and social conditions of a city to cultural debate and political appeals.
Another area of interest is that of site specific art taking three different forms that define each other in such a way where they don’t contradict each other – “the three paradigms of site specificity I have schematized here – phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive – although presented somewhat chronologically, art not stages in a neat linear trajectory of historical development” (277).
Lastly, I would’ve liked more clarification with the following points; first, why didn’t site specific artist just call this “movement” something more around the lines of “functional site” since that is what in essence is being conveyed by this art like suggested by James Meyer? Second, why would there be a return to authenticity and authorship when recreating an artwork somewhere else aside from the “original site” if the new site calls for a new way to interpret the artwork even if it resembles or recreates a past artwork? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of “site specific art” if a new site is being used?
I have to agree with most of the post and say I enjoyed the idea behind this type of art for more than one reason. First, I like how site specific art is not meant to be relocated and the theory that to “remove the work is to destroy the work” (268) because it further privileges this idea of site being equally as important as what is being portrayed. Second, I also enjoyed the role that artist now play in site specific art – a role that goes beyond the originator of an artwork to now include an actor, element, participant role in the artwork itself like demonstrated by Ukeles when washing the entry plaza and steps of a museum. Third, I liked the arguments made by site specific art – arguments that ranged from gender bias and social conditions of a city to cultural debate and political appeals.
Another area of interest is that of site specific art taking three different forms that define each other in such a way where they don’t contradict each other – “the three paradigms of site specificity I have schematized here – phenomenological, social/institutional, and discursive – although presented somewhat chronologically, art not stages in a neat linear trajectory of historical development” (277).
Lastly, I would’ve liked more clarification with the following points; first, why didn’t site specific artist just call this “movement” something more around the lines of “functional site” since that is what in essence is being conveyed by this art like suggested by James Meyer? Second, why would there be a return to authenticity and authorship when recreating an artwork somewhere else aside from the “original site” if the new site calls for a new way to interpret the artwork even if it resembles or recreates a past artwork? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of “site specific art” if a new site is being used?
Scouring the floor for specificity
Site specificity is, thankfully, a more clearly defined and sensible development in art than situationism. Art exists, and it exists in a structure. Galleries, museums, exhibitions, viewers, buyers, taste-makers, money, the elite. And where previous forms of art had called little or no attention to these conditions, site specific art foregrounds them. Not only is there a structure within which art historically exists, there is an implied political content, and site specific art aims to be its antithesis. Daniel Buren wrote that “although it is too early….to blow [the formal and cultural limits] up, the time has come to unveil them” (269). Emphasis is now placed on the location, weather, scale, texture, etc. Art “works” become less and less commodifiable. Aesthetics are largely abandoned in favor of content, making the content itself the ‘site’ of the art.
If Buren’s quote is “militant” as Miwon Kwon claims, it is because site specific art is a self conscious institutional critique. I was most interested to read that as part of their critique of the insularity and politically “suspect” nature of art, the site specific artists brought their works outside of traditional venues, making them more open to non-artists and the non-art world in general.
A parallel between site specific art and situationism seems clear. Both are cultural critiques and critiques of art. Both are antithetical. Both are based among an intellectual community. But where situationism seems to undermine itself with its own solipsism and condemn itself to failure, site specific art seems to have the possibility of success within it. I can’t say if it was “successful” historically, but the stretching or breaking of traditional artistic placement and the inclusion of a wider audience seem a much better approach.
If Buren’s quote is “militant” as Miwon Kwon claims, it is because site specific art is a self conscious institutional critique. I was most interested to read that as part of their critique of the insularity and politically “suspect” nature of art, the site specific artists brought their works outside of traditional venues, making them more open to non-artists and the non-art world in general.
A parallel between site specific art and situationism seems clear. Both are cultural critiques and critiques of art. Both are antithetical. Both are based among an intellectual community. But where situationism seems to undermine itself with its own solipsism and condemn itself to failure, site specific art seems to have the possibility of success within it. I can’t say if it was “successful” historically, but the stretching or breaking of traditional artistic placement and the inclusion of a wider audience seem a much better approach.
Site Specific Art
I found Miwon Kwan's articles to be interesting, easy to understand, and insightful. In the first chapter, he discusses how a variety of influences can effect artwork, operating as a "site." Before reading this article, I would not have considered anything but location to contribute to or make artwork "site specific." Yet, I was interested to read Kwon's thoughts on what is classified as site specific. The discussion of Mary Haacke's performance art was especially interesting and unique for me as well as the commentary on the environment museums create and must maintain. I was able to realize the extent to which culture, politics, and others factors are constantly influencing and providing contexts for artwork.Although, I do not understand the discussion of museum space as public versus private on pae 19. Are museums considered private or public space and what exactly is Haacke commenting on in terms of this issue with her labor based performance art?
In the second chapter, Kwon describes how the concept of "Site specific" art evolved over the years: "Site specific (art) has come to mean 'movable under the right circumstances" (38). The discussion that ensues caught my attention, because it raised the question of authorship. If a work of art can be recreated and commodified by another person identically, then what is the importance of the original artist if their work is not unique and difficult to create. Should only credit be given for the idea rather than the creation?
Reproduction encompassed a large portion of the second chapter. Does a work of art lose meaning, uniqueness, and interest if it can be reproduced? Kwon argues it does, giving examples of the commission of artists like Fred Wilson who recreate the same exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. I feel reproduction allows more observers to enjoy the art, yet I do see how reproduction reduces the interest, rarity and hype surrounding artwork. I would be interested in reading someone's perspective regarding their experience with observing and viewing a commissioned artists identical exhibit in multiple locations and the affects the change in scenery perceiveably have on the artwork. Do the surrounding people also contribute to one's interpretation and interaction with the artwork?
In the second chapter, Kwon describes how the concept of "Site specific" art evolved over the years: "Site specific (art) has come to mean 'movable under the right circumstances" (38). The discussion that ensues caught my attention, because it raised the question of authorship. If a work of art can be recreated and commodified by another person identically, then what is the importance of the original artist if their work is not unique and difficult to create. Should only credit be given for the idea rather than the creation?
Reproduction encompassed a large portion of the second chapter. Does a work of art lose meaning, uniqueness, and interest if it can be reproduced? Kwon argues it does, giving examples of the commission of artists like Fred Wilson who recreate the same exhibit in two different places, producing two widely polarized results. I feel reproduction allows more observers to enjoy the art, yet I do see how reproduction reduces the interest, rarity and hype surrounding artwork. I would be interested in reading someone's perspective regarding their experience with observing and viewing a commissioned artists identical exhibit in multiple locations and the affects the change in scenery perceiveably have on the artwork. Do the surrounding people also contribute to one's interpretation and interaction with the artwork?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)